FORMALIZED MATHEMATICS

Vol. 27, No. 1, Pages 75–85, 2019

DOI: 10.2478/forma-2019-0008 https://www.sciendo.com/

Tarski Geometry Axioms. Part IV – Right

Angle

Roland Coghetto Adam Grabowski

Rue de la Brasserie 5 Institute of Informatics
7100 La Louvière, Belgium University of Białystok
Poland

Summary. In the article, we continue [7] the formalization of the work

devoted to Tarski’s geometry – the book “Metamathematische Methoden in der
Geometrie” (SST for short) by W. Schwabhäuser, W. Szmielew, and A. Tarski
[14], [9], [10]. We use the Mizar system to systematically formalize Chapter 8 of
the SST book.
We define the notion of right angle and prove some of its basic properties,
a theory of intersecting lines (including orthogonality). Using the notion of per-
pendicular foot, we prove the existence of the midpoint (Satz 8.22), which will be
used in the form of the Mizar functor (as the uniqueness can be easily shown) in
Chapter 10. In the last section we give some lemmas proven by means of Otter
during Tarski Formalization Project by M. Beeson (the so-called Section 8A of
SST).

MSC: 51A05 51M04 68T99 03B35

Keywords: Tarski geometry; foundations of geometry; right angle
MML identifier: GTARSKI4, version: 8.1.09 5.54.1344

0. Introduction

We use the Mizar system [1], [2] to systematically formalize Chapter 8

(“Rechte Winkel – Right angle”) of the SST book. The theorems of this chapter
are valid in neutral geometry [13].
We start (Def. 1) with the translation of the definition of the “right angle”
which in SST reads as follows:

c 2019 University of Białystok
CC-BY-SA License ver. 3.0 or later
75 ISSN 1426–2630(Print), 1898-9934(Online)
76 roland coghetto and adam grabowski

a,b,c bilden einen rechten winkel (mit dem Scheitel b):

Rabc :←→ ac ≡ aSb (c).

In the Mizar formalism (note explicit use of Tarski’s axioms):

definition
let S be satisfying_CongruenceIdentity satisfying_CongruenceSymmetry
satisfying_CongruenceEquivalenceRelation
satisfying_SegmentConstruction satisfying_SAS
satisfying_BetweennessIdentity TarskiGeometryStruct;
let a,b,c be POINT of S;
pred right_angle a,b,c means
a,c equiv a,reflection(b,c);
end;

where reflection is defined in [7].

For the purpose of this presentation, we use the notation (a, b, c) instead
of Rabc chosen in SST. Section 3 starts with variants of Definition 8.11, while
in the next section predicate A, B Is x is defined, and this is Def. 7 in our
translation. Section 5 deals with perpendicular foot – Satz 8.18 is Lotsatz, Satz
8.22 states that every segment has a midpoint (Gupta 1965 [11]).
In 2006, the first eight chapters were formalised in Coq in 2006 by Narbo-
ux [12] and we are essentially in this place. The entire SST book have been
formalized within intuitionistic logic [5]. Note that the definitions in [6]1 :

(* Definition 8.1. *)
Definition Per A B C := exists C’, Midpoint B C C’ /\ Cong A C A C’.

and in [4]: ABC is a right angle if there is a point D such that B(A, B, D) and
AB = DB and AC = DC:

rightangle ‘RR A B C <=> ?X. BE A B X /\ EE A B X B /\ EE A C X C /\ NE B C‘

are slightly different than in SST.

Some of the results were obtained by means of other automatic proof assi-
stants, either partially [8], or completely [3].

1
https://github.com/GeoCoq/GeoCoq/blob/master/Tarski_dev/Definitions.v
 Tarski geometry axioms. Part IV – right angle 77

1. Preliminaries

From now on S denotes a non empty Tarski plane satisfying seven Tarski’s
geometry axioms and a, b, c, d, c0 , x, y, z, p, q, q 0 denote points of S.
Let S be a non empty Tarski plane satisfying the axiom of congruence iden-
tity, the axiom of segment construction, the axiom of betweenness identity, and
the axiom of Pasch and a, b be points of S. Let us note that the functor Line(a, b)
is commutative.
Now we state the proposition:
(1) Let us consider Tarski plane S satisfying the axiom of congruence sym-
metry, the axiom of congruence equivalence relation, and the axiom of
congruence identity, and points a, b, c, d of S. Suppose ab ∼ = cd. Then
(i) ab ∼
= dc, and
(ii) ba ∼
= cd, and
(iii) ba ∼
= dc, and
(iv) cd ∼= ab, and
(v) dc ∼
= ab, and
(vi) cd ∼
= ba, and
(vii) dc ∼
= ba.
Let us consider Tarski plane S satisfying the axiom of congruence symme-
try, the axiom of congruence equivalence relation, and the axiom of congruence
identity and points p, q, a, b, c, d of S. Now we state the propositions:
(2) Suppose (pq ∼ = ab or pq ∼ = ba or qp ∼
= ab or qp ∼= ba) and (pq ∼ = cd or
∼ ∼ ∼
pq = dc or qp = cd or qp = dc). Then
(i) ab ∼
= dc, and
(ii) ba ∼
= cd, and
(iii) ba ∼
= dc, and
(iv) cd =∼ ab, and
(v) dc ∼
= ab, and
∼ ba, and
(vi) cd =
(vii) dc ∼
= ba.
The theorem is a consequence of (1).
(3) Suppose (pq ∼= ab or pq ∼
= ba or qp ∼
= ab or qp ∼
= ba or ab ∼
= pq or ba ∼
= pq
∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼
or ab = qp or ba = qp) and (pq = cd or pq = dc or qp = cd or qp = dc or
cd ∼
= pq or dc ∼
= pq or cd ∼
= qp or dc ∼
= qp). Then
78 roland coghetto and adam grabowski

(i) ab ∼
= dc, and
∼ cd, and
(ii) ba =
(iii) ba ∼
= dc, and
(iv) cd ∼
= ab, and
(v) dc ∼
= ab, and
(vi) cd ∼
= ba, and
(vii) dc ∼
= ba, and
(viii) ab ∼
= cd.
The theorem is a consequence of (1) and (2).
(4) Let us consider Tarski plane S satisfying the axiom of congruence identi-
ty, the axiom of segment construction, the axiom of betweenness identity,
and the axiom of Pasch, and points a, b of S. Then
(i) a, b and b are collinear, and
(ii) b, b and a are collinear, and
(iii) b, a and b are collinear.
(5) Let us consider a non empty Tarski plane S satisfying seven Tarski’s
geometry axioms, and points p, q, r of S. Suppose p 6= q and p 6= r and (p,
q and r are collinear or q, r and p are collinear or r, p and q are collinear
or p, r and q are collinear or q, p and r are collinear or r, q and p are
collinear). Then
(i) Line(p, q) = Line(p, r), and
(ii) Line(p, q) = Line(r, p), and
(iii) Line(q, p) = Line(p, r), and
(iv) Line(q, p) = Line(r, p).
(6) Let us consider a Tarski plane S, and points a, b, c of S. Suppose
Middle(a, b, c) or b lies between a and c. Then a, b and c are collinear.
(7) Let us consider Tarski plane S satisfying the axiom of congruence identi-
ty, the axiom of segment construction, the axiom of betweenness identity,
and the axiom of Pasch, and points a, b, c of S. Suppose Middle(a, b, c) or
b lies between a and c. Then
(i) a, b and c are collinear, and
(ii) b, c and a are collinear, and
(iii) c, a and b are collinear, and
(iv) c, b and a are collinear, and
 Tarski geometry axioms. Part IV – right angle 79

(v) b, a and c are collinear, and

(vi) a, c and b are collinear.
The theorem is a consequence of (6).
(8) Ext1:
Let us consider a non empty Tarski plane S satisfying seven Tarski’s geo-
metry axioms, and points a, b, c, d of S. Suppose a 6= b and a, b and c are
collinear and a, b and d are collinear. Then a, c and d are collinear. The
theorem is a consequence of (4) and (5).
(9) Let us consider a non empty Tarski plane S satisfying seven Tarski’s geo-
metry axioms, and points a, b of S. Suppose Middle(a, a, b) or Middle(a, b, b)
or Middle(a, b, a). Then a = b.
(10) Suppose (Middle(a, b, c) or Middle(c, b, a)) and (a 6= b or b 6= c). Then
(i) Line(b, a) = Line(b, c), and
(ii) Line(a, b) = Line(b, c), and
(iii) Line(a, b) = Line(c, b), and
(iv) Line(b, a) = Line(c, b).
The theorem is a consequence of (9).
(11) Suppose a 6= b and c 6= c0 and (c ∈ Line(a, b) or c ∈ Line(b, a)) and
(c0 ∈ Line(a, b) or c0 ∈ Line(b, a)). Then
(i) Line(c, c0 ) = Line(a, b), and
(ii) Line(c, c0 ) = Line(b, a), and
(iii) Line(c0 , c) = Line(b, a), and
(iv) Line(c0 , c) = Line(a, b).
(12) Middle(Sp (c), Sp (b), Sp ((Sb (c)))).

2. Right Angle

Let S be Tarski plane satisfying the axiom of congruence identity, the axiom
of congruence symmetry, the axiom of congruence equivalence relation, the
axiom of segment construction, the axiom of betweenness identity, and the axiom
of SAS and a, b, c be points of S. We say that (a, b, c) if and only if
(Def. 1) ac ∼
= aSb (c).
From now on S denotes Tarski plane satisfying seven Tarski’s geometry
axioms and a, a0 , b, b0 , c, c0 denote points of S.
Now we state the propositions:
 80 roland coghetto and adam grabowski

(13) 8.2 Satz:

If (a, b, c), then (c, b, a).
(14) Sa (a) = a.
(15) 8.3 Satz:
If (a, b, c) and a 6= b and b, a and a0 are collinear, then (a0 , b, c). The
theorem is a consequence of (14).
(16) 8.4 Satz:
If (a, b, c), then (a, b, Sb (c)).
(17) 8.5 Satz:
(a, b, b). The theorem is a consequence of (14).
(18) 8.6 Satz:
If (a, b, c) and (a0 , b, c) and c lies between a and a0 , then b = c.
(19) 8.7 Satz:
If (a, b, c) and (a, c, b), then b = c. The theorem is a consequence of
(13), (17), (1), (7), (15), and (18).
(20) 8.8 Satz:
If (a, b, a), then a = b. The theorem is a consequence of (13), (17), and
(19).
(21) 8.9 Satz:
If (a, b, c) and a, b and c are collinear, then a = b or c = b. The theorem
is a consequence of (15) and (20).
(22) 8.10 Satz:
If (a, b, c) and 4abc ∼ = 4a0 b0 c0 , then (a0 , b0 , c0 ). The theorem is a con-
sequence of (17), (1), and (3).

3. Orthogonality

Let S be a non empty Tarski plane satisfying seven Tarski’s geometry axioms,
A, A0 be subsets of S, and x be a point of S. We say that A ⊥x A0 if and only if
(Def. 2) A is a line and A0 is a line and x ∈ A and x ∈ A0 and for every points u,
v of S such that u ∈ A and v ∈ A0 holds (u, x, v).
We say that A ⊥ A0 if and only if
(Def. 3) there exists a point x of S such that A ⊥x A0 .
Let A be a subset of S and x, c, d be points of S. We say that A, x ⊥ c, d if
and only if
(Def. 4) c 6= d and A ⊥x Line(c, d).
Let a, b, x, c, d be points of S. We say that a, b ⊥x c, d if and only if
 Tarski geometry axioms. Part IV – right angle 81

(Def. 5) a 6= b and c 6= d and Line(a, b) ⊥x Line(c, d).

Let a, b, c, d be points of S. We say that a, b ⊥ c, d if and only if
(Def. 6) a 6= b and c 6= d and Line(a, b) ⊥ Line(c, d).
From now on S denotes a non empty Tarski plane satisfying seven Tarski’s
geometry axioms, A, A0 denote subsets of S, and x, y, z, a, b, c, c0 , d, u, p, q, q 0
denote points of S.
Now we state the propositions:
(23) 8.12 Satz:
A ⊥x A0 if and only if A0 ⊥x A.
(24) 8.13 Satz:
A ⊥x A0 if and only if A is a line and A0 is a line and x ∈ A and x ∈ A0
and there exist points u, v of S such that u ∈ A and v ∈ A0 and u 6= x
and v 6= x and (u, x, v). The theorem is a consequence of (15) and (13).
(25) 8.14 (i) Satz:
If A ⊥ A0 , then A 6= A0 . The theorem is a consequence of (24) and (21).

4. Intersection of Lines

Let S be a non empty Tarski plane, A, B be subsets of S, and x be a point

of S. We say that A, B intersect at x if and only if
(Def. 7) A is a line and B is a line and A 6= B and x ∈ A and x ∈ B.
Now we state the propositions:
(26) 8.14 (ii) Satz:
A ⊥x A0 if and only if A ⊥ A0 and A, A0 intersect at x. The theorem is
a consequence of (25).
(27) 8.14 (iii) Satz:
If A ⊥x A0 and A ⊥y A0 , then x = y. The theorem is a consequence of
(25) and (26).
(28) If a, b and x are collinear and a, b ⊥ c, x, then a, b ⊥x c, x. The theorem
is a consequence of (25) and (26).
(29) 8.15 Satz:
If a 6= b and a, b and x are collinear, then a, b ⊥ c, x iff a, b ⊥x c, x. The
theorem is a consequence of (28).
(30) 8.16 Satz:
Suppose a 6= b and a, b and x are collinear and a, b and u are collinear
and u 6= x. Then a, b ⊥ c, x if and only if a, b and c are not collinear and
(c, x, u). The theorem is a consequence of (29), (13), (21), and (24).
 82 roland coghetto and adam grabowski

5. Perpendicular Foot

Let S be a non empty Tarski plane satisfying seven Tarski’s geometry axioms
and a, b, c, x be points of S. We say that x is perpendicular foot of a, b, c if
and only if
(Def. 8) a, b and x are collinear and a, b ⊥ c, x.
Now we state the propositions:
(31) 8.18 Satz – Uniqueness:
If x is perpendicular foot of a, b, c and y is perpendicular foot of a, b, c,
then x = y. The theorem is a consequence of (29), (13), and (19).
(32) Suppose a, b and c are not collinear and a lies between b and y and a 6= y
and y lies between a and z and yz ∼ = yp and y 6= p and q 0 = Sz (q) and
Middle(c, x, c ) and c 6= y and y lies between q 0 and c0 and Middle(y, p, c)
0

and y lies between p and q and q 6= q 0 . Then x 6= y. The theorem is

a consequence of (10) and (11).
In the sequel S denotes a non empty Tarski plane satisfying Lower Dimension
Axiom and seven Tarski’s geometry axioms and a, b, c, p, q, x, y, z, t denote
points of S.
Now we state the propositions:
(33) 8.18 Satz – Existence:
If a, b and c are not collinear, then there exists x such that x is perpendi-
cular foot of a, b, c.
Proof: Consider y such that a lies between b and y and ay ∼ = ac. Consider
p such that Middle(y, p, c). Consider z such that y lies between a and z
and yz ∼ = yp. Consider q such that y lies between p and q and yq ∼ = ya.
Set q = Sz (q). Consider c such that y lies between q and c and yc ∼
0 0 0 0 0 = yc.
a 6= y. (q, z, y). (y, z, q). Consider x such that Middle(c, x, c0 ). y 6= p.
c 6= y. q 6= q 0 . c 6= x. 
(34) 8.20 Lemma:
If (a, b, c) and Middle(Sa (c), p, Sb (c)), then (b, a, p) and if b 6= c, then
a 6= p.
Proof: Set d = Sb (c). Set b0 = Sa (b). Set c0 = Sa (c). Set d0 = Sa (d).
Set p0 = Sa (p). (b0 , b, c). b0 b ∼ = bb0 . b0 c ∼
= bc0 . 4b0 bc ∼= 4bb0 c0 . (b, b0 , c0 ).
0
Sb0 (c0 ) = d0 . IFS dc0 ,, pp,0 ,d,c, bb . If b 6= c, then a 6= p. 

(35) Suppose a, b and c are not collinear. Then there exists p and there exists
t such that a, b ⊥ p, a and a, b and t are collinear and t lies between c and
p. The theorem is a consequence of (33), (29), (34), and (24).
(36) 8.21 Satz:
If a 6= b, then there exists p and there exists t such that a, b ⊥ p, a and a, b
 Tarski geometry axioms. Part IV – right angle 83

and t are collinear and t lies between c and p. The theorem is a consequence
of (35).
(37) If a 6= b and a 6= p and (b, a, p) and (a, b, q), then p, a and q are not
collinear. The theorem is a consequence of (13), (15), and (19).
(38) Let us consider a non empty Tarski plane S satisfying Lower Dimension
Axiom and seven Tarski’s geometry axioms, and points a, b, p, q, t of
S. Suppose a, p ¬ b, q and a, b ⊥ q, b and a, b ⊥ p, a and a, b and t are
collinear and t lies between q and p. Then there exists a point x of S such
that Middle(a, x, b).
Proof: Consider r being a point of S such that r lies between b and q
and ap ∼ = br. Consider x being a point of S such that x lies between t and
b and x lies between r and p. a, b and x are collinear. Consider x0 being
a point of S such that Line(a, b) ⊥x0 Line(q, b). Consider y being a point
of S such that Line(a, b) ⊥y Line(p, a). (q, b, a) and q 6= b and b, q and r
are collinear. (r, b, a). b, a and p are not collinear and a, b and q are not
collinear. 
(39) 8.22 Satz:
Let us consider a non empty Tarski plane S satisfying Lower Dimension
Axiom and seven Tarski’s geometry axioms, and points a, b of S. Then
there exists a point x of S such that Middle(a, x, b). The theorem is a con-
sequence of (36) and (38).
(40) 8.24 Lemma:
Let us consider a non empty Tarski plane S satisfying Lower Dimension
Axiom and seven Tarski’s geometry axioms, and points a, b, p, q, r, t of
S. Suppose p, a ⊥ a, b and q, b ⊥ a, b and a, b and t are collinear and t
lies between p and q and r lies between b and q and ap ∼ = br. Then there
exists a point x of S such that
(i) Middle(a, x, b), and
(ii) Middle(p, x, r).
Proof: Consider x being a point of S such that x lies between t and b
and x lies between r and p. a, b and x are collinear. Consider x0 being
a point of S such that Line(a, b) ⊥x0 Line(q, b). Consider y being a point
of S such that Line(a, b) ⊥y Line(p, a). (q, b, a) and q 6= b and b, q and r
are collinear. (r, b, a). b, a and p are not collinear and a, b and q are not
collinear. 
84 roland coghetto and adam grabowski

6. Additional Lemmas Needed by Otter: Chapter 8A

Now we state the propositions:

(41) ExtCol2:
Let us consider points a, b, c, d, x, p, q of S. Suppose c, d ∈ Line(a, b) and
a 6= b and c 6= d. Then Line(a, b) = Line(c, d).
(42) ExtPerp:
Let us consider points a, b, c, d, x, p, q of S. Suppose c, d ∈ Line(a, b) and
c 6= d and a, b ⊥x p, q. Then c, d ⊥x p, q. The theorem is a consequence of
(11).
(43) ExtPerp2:
Let us consider points a, b, c, d, p, q of S. Suppose p, q ∈ Line(a, b) and
a 6= b and p, q ⊥ c, d. Then a, b ⊥ c, d. The theorem is a consequence of
(11).
(44) ExtPerp3:
Let us consider points a, b, c, d of S. Suppose a 6= b and b 6= c and c 6= d
and a 6= c and a 6= d and b 6= d and b, a ⊥ a, c and a, c and d are collinear.
Then b, a ⊥ a, d. The theorem is a consequence of (11).
(45) ExtPerp4:
Let us consider points a, b, p, q of S. If a, b ⊥ p, q, then a, b ⊥ q, p.
(46) ExtPerp5:
Let us consider points a, b, c, d, p, q of S. Suppose p, q ∈ Line(a, b) and
p 6= q and a, b ⊥ c, d. Then p, q ⊥ c, d. The theorem is a consequence of
(11).
(47) ExtPerp5A:
Let us consider points a, b, c, d, p, q of S. Suppose a, b and p are collinear
and a, b and q are collinear and p 6= q and a, b ⊥ c, d. Then p, q ⊥ c, d.
The theorem is a consequence of (46).
(48) ExtPerp6:
Let us consider points a, b, c, d, p, q of S. Suppose p, q ∈ Line(a, b)
and p 6= q and a 6= b and c, d ⊥ p, q. Then c, d ⊥ a, b. The theorem is
a consequence of (11).

References
[1] Grzegorz Bancerek, Czesław Byliński, Adam Grabowski, Artur Korniłowicz, Roman Ma-
tuszewski, Adam Naumowicz, Karol Pąk, and Josef Urban. Mizar: State-of-the-art and
beyond. In Manfred Kerber, Jacques Carette, Cezary Kaliszyk, Florian Rabe, and Vol-
ker Sorge, editors, Intelligent Computer Mathematics, volume 9150 of Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, pages 261–279. Springer International Publishing, 2015. ISBN 978-3-
319-20614-1. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20615-8 17.
 Tarski geometry axioms. Part IV – right angle 85

[2] Grzegorz Bancerek, Czesław Byliński, Adam Grabowski, Artur Korniłowicz, Roman Ma-
tuszewski, Adam Naumowicz, and Karol Pąk. The role of the Mizar Mathematical Library
for interactive proof development in Mizar. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 61(1):9–32,
2018. doi:10.1007/s10817-017-9440-6.
[3] Michael Beeson and Larry Wos. OTTER proofs in Tarskian geometry. In International
Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning, volume 8562 of Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, pages 495–510. Springer, 2014. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08587-6 38.
[4] Michael Beeson, Julien Narboux, and Freek Wiedijk. Proof-checking Euclid. Annals of
Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, Jan 2019. doi:10.1007/s10472-018-9606-x.
[5] Pierre Boutry, Gabriel Braun, and Julien Narboux. Formalization of the Arithmetization
of Euclidean Plane Geometry and Applications. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 90:
149–168, 2019. doi:10.1016/j.jsc.2018.04.007.
[6] Pierre Boutry, Charly Gries, Julien Narboux, and Pascal Schreck. Parallel postulates
and continuity axioms: a mechanized study in intuitionistic logic using Coq. Journal of
Automated Reasoning, 62(1):1–68, 2019.
[7] Roland Coghetto and Adam Grabowski. Tarski geometry axioms. Part III. Formalized
Mathematics, 25(4):289–313, 2017. doi:10.1515/forma-2017-0028.
[8] Sana Stojanovic Durdevic, Julien Narboux, and Predrag Janičić. Automated generation
of machine verifiable and readable proofs: a case study of Tarski’s geometry. Annals of
Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 74(3-4):249–269, 2015.
[9] Adam Grabowski. Tarski’s geometry modelled in Mizar computerized proof assistant. In
Maria Ganzha, Leszek Maciaszek, and Marcin Paprzycki, editors, Proceedings of the 2016
Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), volume 8
of ACSIS – Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, pages 373–381, 2016.
doi:10.15439/2016F290.
[10] Adam Grabowski and Roland Coghetto. Tarski’s geometry and the Euclidean plane in
Mizar. In Joint Proceedings of the FM4M, MathUI, and ThEdu Workshops, Doctoral
Program, and Work in Progress at the Conference on Intelligent Computer Mathematics
2016 co-located with the 9th Conference on Intelligent Computer Mathematics (CICM
2016), Białystok, Poland, July 25–29, 2016, volume 1785 of CEUR-WS, pages 4–9, 2016.
[11] Haragauri Narayan Gupta. Contributions to the Axiomatic Foundations of Geometry.
PhD thesis, University of California-Berkeley, 1965.
[12] Julien Narboux. Mechanical theorem proving in Tarski’s geometry. In Francisco Botana
and Tomas Recio, editors, Automated Deduction in Geometry, pages 139–156, Berlin,
Heidelberg, 2007. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3-540-77356-6.
[13] William Richter, Adam Grabowski, and Jesse Alama. Tarski geometry axioms. Formalized
Mathematics, 22(2):167–176, 2014. doi:10.2478/forma-2014-0017.
[14] Wolfram Schwabhäuser, Wanda Szmielew, and Alfred Tarski. Metamathematische Me-
thoden in der Geometrie. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo, 1983.

Accepted March 11, 2019